bangedbyAtruck wrote:

Well you didn't respond to the last response I gave you, so if you're just trolling, then all I'm gonna say is, keep it up, FreshOutOfLuck. This "kinder side of the forum" without antagonism, ridicule or derision, seems to come along once every 5,000 posts, when the subject of alternative audio products is discussed.

Prior to PWB ideas & theory, I was just like any other "normal" audiophile. Except I knew a lot more about audio than they did. Not because I studied engineering to build equipment pretty much like everyone else was building equipment, but because I studied what changed sound, (in an effort to understand what produced good sound). This is called, by the general community, "tweaking". So I guess I was always a "tweaker". Not because I was never satisified with my sound, but because I was fascinated by all the ways in which I heard sound could change. Even then, I would later find that some of those ways were being rejected by the community at large, as nonexistent or insignificant. Such as my experiments in isolating components from resonance (which most audiophiles never cared about then, and care even less about today), or cable direction (in which people were saying there were no differences to be had, despite my conclusions that there were... and for all I know, the sheep are probably braying that same tune today).

We're talking some 20 years ago now, around which time I read some articles in the British hifi press about strange and unusual devices by one Peter Belt..... There was a lot of controversy stirred over these products as can be imagined, with some reviewers defending them after being introduced to them and hearing their effects, others soundly rejecting them before even trying them, and other reviewers stating no differences were heard.
Well not being in the UK, I couldn't buy them myself, but I tried some of the ideas, as they were a free tweak that I could try. One consisted of cutting a notch in the center of your plug blade, which I found beneficial and continued to use on every piece of new equipment I acquired in those 20 years.

I knew nothing about how any of this worked at the time (and indeed, neither did Belt), only that the tweak worked (for me).... and somehow it did for 20 years, without my having to know how it worked. If it was a placebo, it's got to be the damndest most effective placebo ever devised by man, to have lasted two decades. I knew Belt's ideas were unique, but I had no idea what a true revolutionary the man was. I did not think in terms of "Newtonian physics" or "quantum physics" re: the little plug tweak. If anything, I believed there was a Newtonian explanation for it, probably in regards to electrons flowing across the blade, and somehow preferring having that flow somewhat interrupted by the notch. (Don't anyone even try to argue with that, as I said, I didn't really care how it worked).

In the last while, I rediscovered via the net that Belt was still alive and well, and even making a slew of new products, all of which are now available globally. Now, I'm not so sure about my Newtonian explanation for the plug blade (its probably a form of quantum energy that it manipulates, rather than electrical energy), because I've come to understand alternate theories that better explain quite a number of misapplications of Newtonian principles that people commonly make. Not simply by swallowing whatever is read without questioning it (as 99% of audiophiles do), but by making my own observations within the theoretical domain of "Beltism" (as 99% of Beltists do...).

I have since made my own discoveries concerning the phenomenon apart from what Belt has done, but within the laws of his hypotheses (and indeed, inspired by them). The site I recently posted that allows you to download mp3's and compare Belted and non-Belted CD burners covers one of those more recent discoveries. The fact is, and this -is- a "fact" no matter how much people might like to argue it, there are currently much phenomenon in audio science that can't be explained by conventional science. (And can't necessarily be proven by conventional scientific standards either). Such as the aforementioned effects of cable direction. (Of course, whatever can't be proven by conventional scientific knowledge is always sloughed off as "the placebo effect" by conventional thinkers).

After my later reintroduction to Beltism, some of my earliest personal evaluations of the theory caused me to understand how the environment we live in plays such a dominant role to our sensory perception. This was because I had applied Belt treatments (such as the laser etched metallic foils) to things that had nothing to do with the stereo (ie. water tank, electricity meter, pipes/plumbing), and was getting results better than on the stereo itself. Doing simple things like removing my video tapes (all extraneous articles containing magnets, including cassettes) from the listening room, and finding significant improvements to my perception of sound, showed me how objects in our environment have a profound effect on our senses.

The reason I have a hifi of astounding ability today, is because of the fact that I have always remained open minded audio enthusiast. I never cared much for the closed-minded pig headedness I saw in my fellow hobbyists, and never cared much for the argument of theories either. I always beleived, long before my journey through the looking-glass of Beltism, that if I felt I heard differences or improvements, that's good enough for me. The prolonged increase in my enjoyment of music was all that I needed as evidence. (Needless to say, I have since become -very good- at discovering what does and doesn't profoundly affect our enjoyment of reproduced music, whether via Beltist or conventional upgrades).

Despite the presence of the ever open mind, there's always some doubt at first that these rituals can possibly have true meaning. So I too wanted some validation for what I was hearing (no man is an island....). Which is why, for weeks on end, I never told my friend I was Belting her stereo..... At the time she didn't play music often, just a little clock radio. Which served my interests... because when she finally put a CD on, she turned and looked at me with a "What the hell just happened?" look. That was all the validation I needed, that my (secret Belting) efforts were being heard by another. Not only did she not know at the time that I had worked on her system, not only did she not know it was entirely via Beltist products and methods, but she didn't even know I was an audio nut (or tweaker). However, I had done enough that a transformation had taken place, not merely "changes".

The system was cheap old kit, valued at about $300 in today's market, I'd figure (if that). An SS Technics receiver from the 70's, an old 6-disc Denon cd changer (bottom of their line) , and a large pair of home made 3 way floorstanding speakers one of her relatives had cobbled together in the 70's. And I did not install my MIT Shotgun IC's on her system either. I left in place the garden variety freebie interconnects, and cheapass 24g speaker wire. (I did however "Belt" the IC's by tying a square knot in them at one end). After spending time treating the system & environment with Beltist techniques every day for a couple of weeks, I actually preferred its sound to that of my own (then) non-Belted system.

It was an effortless, natural sound. So open, that these massive ugly diy speakers sitting on the floor 3 feet away from you, sounded like they weren't even there. The singer in the centre of them however, did sound like she was there in the room with you. Timbre had a rich, natural tone to it, and some noise a musician made would occasionally surprise you, because it sounded like the instrument was in the room. Although it might be hard to imagine reproducing any real sense of "depth" on a system like this, particularly with an a/v cabinet planted right between (and slightly in front of) the speakers, depth was there in spades. You didn't hear "highs,mids,lows", you just heard "music". And the music you heard was very engaging. I remember trying to write messages on audio forums like this, and finding myself having to interrput my writing, because the stereo was playing, and I kept feeling compelled to go back to the couch to listen to it....

Now about those messages.... naturally, I also felt compelled to share what I had discovered with the audio community. And then I got an "education" in just what sort of an "open minded global society" we were living in today. When attempting to share some of the things I'd learned, even to the point of offering people free ways I discovered to improve their sound, I was thanked with hoots of derision, ridicule, mockery, scorn, contempt, defamatory attacks, (I think y'all know the tune by now). So as any normal person would in a situation like this, I made plans of vengeance to murder -each and every audiophile- I could find on the net. But when I did research in Wikipedia, I found this was not only socially unacceptable, but "illegal" as well:

http://www.wikipedia.org/legality_issues_murdering_closedminded_audiophiles.html

I learned through those experiences that most people out there in the online audio community are not audiophiles at all. They are at best, what I call dilletantes. They don't join audio forums to learn anything (of significance) new about audio, they come to assert what they already know. And take comfort in surrounding themselves with others who share the same beliefs and interests.

I came to realize from reading many contributions from many people on many usenet and web based audio discussion forums.... that most people simply don't know what the f**k they're talking about. And they wouldn't know, since they continually regurgitate the same wrong (but widely accepted) information between them, and they base the quality of their audio on that false information. They'll accept that wrong (or missing) information to the death, and argue it until they are blue in the face. Then continue arguing it some more.

So I decided I would let sheep be sheep, if that's what people want to be, but not allow myself to be silenced by the majority opinion, which was -always- "stupid opinions of sheer unadulterated ignorance", and always masquerading as "reasonable intellect". If for whatever reason I ever brought up my Beltist beliefs in the online audio community, I stuck to the principles of non-directionality and non-violent change, as practiced by my personal heroes, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. Except that I wore a big chip on my shoulder and always had a sack of doorknobs close at hand. I consider them both "useful debating tools".